some of the dates for the board of supervisors and for other -- our may yoirl race as well sx, also we made some other nominations according to the advice of elections, around the circulation of badges and filing fees, i would also like to ask the rules committee to consider making some amendments today, further clean-up of this legislation, one is to section 205 and this would push back the nomination deadline for all candidates to match those of the mayor and the board of supervisors so this would be by the 146 day before the municipal election, it also specifies the period by which the candidates and the mayor of supervisor may circulate their nomination papers. section 220 and 260 follow along the lines of this clean-up just specifying the date for mayor and board of

supervisor must withdraw their statement and specifying the dates by which all other candidates must withdraw and many of you remember this conversation from last year when we were reforming public finance, there was a concern that the way the previous deadline had been that we often trapped candidates into continued to run for a race because they had already received public financing disfigurement, the ghost candidate issue, and we had found that candidates who not knowing who other candidates were, once finding out what the broad array of candidates were realized they may not have continued running, but then ended up running, so we did move up the declaration of canadian candidacy from june,

and it wouldn't occur after the field has been set, and i'm not sure if mr. arts would like to come and speak further on this legislation. >> thank you, i don't have any sort of prepared comment, i was here to answer questions mostly, but the department was trying to put together some changes to the imc amendments at the same time as the campaign and financial reform legislation was moving through so this is sort of a combination of the two different changes to the campaign and to the election code in san francisco. what we're proposing, wi ear not trying to make any policy statements with the changes we put forward, i think the only thing that might seem like a policy statement by the department would be the removing of the disclaimer in the voter guide, if supervisors support or oppose legislation,

that they already voted on, i can give you an example of that if you have time, i don't know how you want to structure this, but we're trying to tighten the deadline to make the language more clear, that's all we're trying to put forward. >> so, if you could give an example. >> with the disclaimer that goes into the voter guide, whenever the legislation places measure on the ballot, there's always a -- i don't know if this works or not -- there's section in the voter guide right here, this is for prop c that was on last november's ballot, this indicates how this measure got on the ballot, if the supervisor were to vote yes or no or was excused at the time of the vote for that particular measure, it would go into the voter guide already, that's established and it's separate from this, it's a different one, it's been in

there for years, we're not proposing to change it or remove it, what we want to remove is language that whenever the board assigns an argument for a measure on the ballot, there's a disclaimer that has to go on the voter guide indicating if supervisors support, oppose or take no position on the measure they've already voted on. this -- i think this started in 2002, this is relatively new compared to how it got into the ballot section, this confuses everybody, because supervisors feel like they voted on it already, why do i have to fill out something separate, and this is the same time of the fall recess, it's difficult to get a hold of people to ask them if they still support, oppose or take any position on a measure and nobody knows what this is about after this many year, so we want to end this

process, we'll send forms to you or call you, and you've already taken your vote, made your statement on this legislation so we want to remove this extra step from the voter guide, that's what we're proposing to move this pr the voter guide, but not how something got on the ballot from the voter guide. >> are there any questions from committee members? >> supervisor breed? >> i just had a question, thank you, supervisor kim for your leadership on this issue, i think just in general, this is a lot of clean-up and something that from experience that we had over the years on elections that make the process work better and make it more efficient and i care about efficiency, so i'm excited about this piece of legislation, but i do have a question for clarity, the logic behind making it harder for

candidates to withdraw. does it have anything to do with the printing of the ballots and i know some of the issues that have existed in the past is there are candidates that have withdrawn from the race but their name still ends up on the ballot and i'm just trying to understand because that date has been changed as well, the number of days, so does that have anything to do with anything that makes this more efficient? >> it does. we're not trying to make it more difficult for anyone to withdraw from a contest. i think it's 102 days before the election is -- the date that's in the proposed legislation now, i think that's 42 days after the new deadline, the new june deadline for the mayor and board of supervisor candidates, but for all other candidates, it's 21 days after the deadline to withdraw, so we're trying to match the 21 days that's established in state law to withdraw from a contest to a change we're making in san francisco for

the mayor and supervisor. >> i got it, so in terms of the pamphlet, the printing of the books because i know they're really expensive, how will this impact that? >> it won't because the june deadline is really not that we'd have plenty of time to note on the ballot. >> and the previous deadline wasn't necessarily enough time to make any changes in that regard? >> the 102? >> the current deadline? >> the current deadline, we can still make changes, there's 25 days for the nomination period for both deadlines for the june, for the august deadline, there's the 21 days after that deadline to withdraw, both for candidacy and your candidate statement, so we're trying to

keep uniforms as long as the law is concerned. >> so, this impacts public financing by making sure that until someone files and is declared a candidate, they won't be able to obtain public financing? >> yes, and they'll know the complete fields of candidates that they're running with before they get the financial disbursements, so that will all -- >> i do appreciate the clean-up regarding department of elections suggestion. it often happens during recess and i know it's a big scramble to get signatures when supervisors are taking off for different places so i think this is a good fix. >> great, thank you very much. i appreciate that. >> supervisor kim, thank you for bringing this clean-up legislation and it's very logical and it's always very nice to look at logical legislation, and one of the things that at least for last

year, we ran into an issue at a point -- maybe it's not an issue anymore, and this is more a question of people that want to run, by changing the dates, we would then not have a problem with people who are running to basically collect signatures in lieu of because last year there was a question whether because of the dates, whether you could do that or not, and so by moving the dates with this clean-up legislation, we wouldn't have the same impact that we had last year. can you xlair fi? >> the lou of filing fee signatures, they're tied not to the election, they're tied to the nomination timeframe, so moving the nomination timeframe

to june for mayor and supervisor would also move the time allowed, time available for gathering signatures for in lieu of the filing fee, so you would have the same amount of time to gather signatures for a june nomination deadline as you would for an august nomination deadline, there's no impact whatsoever. >> okay. >> but just to clarify because i understood supervisor yee's question, but it does push back the sixty gathering, so currently the process is you start gathering signatures around the end of may, roughly the 3rd of july, but this will push it back. er >> it would begin 45 days before, and end 15 days prior to the nomination deadline, so then you're going 45 from june into, yeah, may. >> okay. >> so, we would allow the same number of days to gather sixties -- sixties last year.

>> that wasn't the case last year. >> okay, thank you. any other questions? seeing none, any public comments? seeing none, public -- seeing one. >> good afternoon, supervisors, this is great, but i'm just wondering, maybe i may have this wrong, but i think that going out in the community and gathering signatures is a good thing and with the filing fee, i don't know if it's somebody missing something about the supreme court, but i think the filing fee should stay out and have people gather signatures because i know i was thinking about running for the college

board and i had a ball gathering signatures, and then i think that you'll find out if people like you or not because you have to go out there and compensate and meet your neighbors, so maybe i have it wrong and i'm looking at this wrong, but i think the filing fee shouldn't be added back into it. people should go out and collect signatures. >> supervisor kim, direct me if i'm wrong, you still will be able to collect signatures, that feature is not going to be taken away. >> you will be able to collect sixty or pay the 500 filing fee, the 500 filing fee remains the same with all the candidates. >> it was never gone? >> you can always file either in lieu sixties or -- signatures or pay the fee or a

combination of both. >> good afternoon, supervised sores, my name is douglas, i've lived in san francisco for 61 years. i wasn't planning to comment on this, but since this item was taken out of order, i may as well say a few words. since we're talking about the municipal election code and making amendments, i would like to offer two suggestions, a bit controversial, but why not make it for the record. first suggestion for the code is require winning candidate to have mandatory drug test before taking office, a lot of people in washington dc keep talking about how many candidates are under suspicion for drug use so i thought i would bring that out to san francisco. second suggestion is that in an election where there is a residency required, ie, board

of supervisors, if there is a written question about whether a candidate lives in a district, then it's public information, how the investigation goes and then the candidate that's being questioned is required by the election code to put in writing that he does live in the district. now, this was in regards to a situation that was done entirely in writing in 2008 and to this day, the particular person i'm talking about still refuses to put in writing whether he lived in the district or he was running to be supervisor, and the only thing i have to say, if you can't put it in writing, that brings up a legitimate question. thank you. >> okay. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any thoughts? is there a motion to forward

this item to the full board? >> [inaudible]. >> could we first take a motion to make the amendments that i had? >> thank you. is there a motion to amend? >> excuse me, andrew shawn, deputy city attorney, good afternoon, rules committee, chair yee, as a matter of procedure, given the more recent amendments that supervisor kim read into the record, those are substantive amendments so we'll require an additional hearing, so you can move to amend the ordinance and continue to the next rules committee and forward it then on to the full board. sorry to interrupt. >> that's good, so we'll continue this. >> so, can we take the motion to amend first though. >> okay. >> yeah, so moved. >> seeing no objection, moved. >> thank you to the members of rules committee and i look forward to coming out with

recommendations at the next rules mitt tie. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. let's move on to item 1, can you please call item number 1. >> supervisor, just for clarification, would you like to continue this item as amended to the call of the chair? >> yes. >> thank you. item number 1, motion appointing supervisor london breed term ending january 31, 2015 to the golden gate bridge, highway and transportation district. >> is there a motion to -- >> [inaudible]. >> >> i would like to make a motion to support the appointment for london breed to the transportation district, to the goldman gate bridge, highway and transportation district. >> public comment? are there any public comments for this?

>> good afternoon, supervisors, my name's douglas yal, i would like to speak in favor of this motion. i think ms. breed is the type of person we need on this board. if i remember correctly, supervisor elsbernd used to be on this board and i think in my opinion that she would be doing a lot better job. the only thing i would like to question publicly about this agency is how efficient are the tolls being used so i would like to suggest that our represent question very closely how those tolls are being used and whether there's any waste and corruption involved. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comments? public comment is closed. there's been a motion.

okay, with no objection, we'll mover this forward to the next board. >> great. >> thank you. >> madam clerk, can you please call item number 2. >> item number 2, motion confirming the mayor's reappointment of tom nolan term ending march 1, 2017 to the municipal transportation agency board of directors. >> okay. i believe mr. nolan is here today, mr. nolan, please approach to the microphone and if you would like to say something. >> first of all, congratulations, supervisor breed on your election. yeah, i'm delighted to be here in afternoon and delighted to be reappoint by the mayor for your confirmation and a little

bit from my own transportation experience, i served 28 years on transportation boards starting with the san fran board, i was on the mta board for 7 days and was reappoint last year to the joint powers board yet again, and i served as chair of the mta board, every time i get a chance to speak about the mta, i'm proud to be part of it, it is an amazing organization, i think we have a terrific board, our vice chair is with me here today, our secretary, outstanding public servant, my other colleagues on the board, everybody takes it very seriously, works very hard and very conscientious and i think the goal we've always had is to look at the city as a whole yet being mindful of the particular areas and interesting all around san francisco but more

importantly than all of us, the 500 thousand men and women that work for the system every day, a tough job out there and they do it with a lot of hard work, i'm happy to be nominated, and i'm cutely aware of how vital this system is to san francisco, particularly last year when we were alerting about providing free immunity for youth, how vital that system is, the system for the city is, and there's so many parts of the system that are so vital in my ways, muni, bikes, traffic, taxi, all work together, i think, to serve the city very well, so i would appreciate your thoughtful consideration on this and i would be honored to do another 4 years, thank you. >> thank you, supervisors, any questions? >> i have a question. >> go ahead, supervisor cohen.

>> thank you, i would make a motion to accept -- we're going to have public comment, that's right. >> we're going to take public comment. >> no questions. >> any public comments? come on up. >> i'm in trouble now. >> you have two minutes, please indicate your support. >> thank you, thank you, chairman yee, supervisor cohen and supervisor breed, i'm cheryl, i'm the chair of the board of directors and i'm here to voice my support for tom nolan's appointment, he has amazing experience in regional politics and serving on boards, he has four board members right now, myself included, who have less than three years experience on that board, myself and director bridges were appointed about the same time, dr, ramos also has been on the board for a short time,

so having someone with tom nolan's experience and to be able to use him as a role model with his interaction with the city is important to us and we do continue to face a lot of challenges at the mta, we know there still is a lot of work to be done, but like tom, i'm incredibly impressed with the agency, i'm impressed with the employees, i have also been impressed with the support from the board of supervisors with the -- so, i'm here to hope that you voice tom's nomination on to the full board and thank you very much. >> are there any other public comments? seeing none, public comment is closed now. colleagues, -- well, i'll give my thoughts. i think i'm very happy that tom's willing to extend his

commitment to this commission. i just met him recently and just talking to him, i realize how much knowledge he has of the situation in san francisco under the mta hospices and that his commitment towards those issues are second to none, so i'll be supporting your nomination. colleagues? >> i too will be supporting the nomination, it was a pleasure working with him on jpb. >> supervisor breed? >> thank you, and i want to move this nomination, not just because commissioner nolan is a resident of district 5, but more importantly, he served on this commission for many, many years and has the support of groups like the bicycle coalition and other individuals who have sent letters to me about how fair you've been on the commission, your leadership and how you've worked with people throughout the years and that's really important bh we talk about transportation and

how we deal with the issues of muni and parking meters and everything that exists in this city so to have someone open minded, practical and willing to build bridges i think is extremely important in serving, so thank you commissioner nolan, and i want to make sure i want to move this nomination. >> is there a second? >> second. >> seeing no objection, move to the full board. madam clerk, item number 3. >> item number 3, hearing to consider appointing two members, terns ending february 19, 2014 to the bicycle advisory committee, there are two seats and two applicants. >> yes, mr. nicolson, please come up and make your comments. >> for me, this would be a reappointment so greetings, i have served on the bicycle advisory committee for the last two years and we've reviewed a

number of issues, i'm a bicycle commuter from the sunset district downtown three to five days a week, seen numerous changes over the last two years which are some good, some we need to keep working on so i want to continue my efforts to help the city improve its bicycle plan, my family is also avid bicyclists, i really don't have much else to add other than that, so i'm open to questions. >> thank you, any questions? >> thank you, i have a question, what are your thoughts about the conversation that's happened i think in the last two weeks about moving bike lane from market street to mission street? in two minutes or less. >> that's an interesting question, i find market street too dangerous for comments, like the comments say, there's pedestrians and buses, buses are very dangerous for

bicyclists so i often shift over to mission, there's less thing going on, my biggest fear on market street with the way it's laid out, you have the buses stopping in the middle of the street and people disembarking from the buses, there's been a couple of cases where people have come out of the bus between the railings and they're hidden by a car and a bicycle may not see them and older people, that's very dangerous, my sense is that if we can reduce the number of different things that can collide on the street, it's better, so that's my personal opinion, not necessarily the committee's opinion, we haven't had a chance to discuss it yet on the committee. >> i look forward to that discussion, thank you, mr. chair, i have no further questions. >> thank you. is morgan fitzgibbons, come on

up. >> hello, supervisors, thank you very much for your time today, i'd like to start off by introducing myself, morgan fitzgibbons, i would like to thank supervisor breed for nominating me for this position. a little bit about my xwal fi occasions, i am a co-founder of the wig party and we make the area around the wig more sustainable and resilient, you may not recognize me because i don't have my wig on today. in addition to the work that we do through the wig party which has a strong emphasis on bicycle advocacy as well as other things like local food and local economy projects, with regards to bicycle advocacy, we encourage safe riding, to promote bicycle use in general and i also am adjunct professor of environmental studies of the university of san francisco, so that's also, it's outside district 5, but also an important part of the growing bicycle culture through our

neighborhood and inner city, you know, i'm excited about this opportunity, you know, i'm eager to help the board of supervisors achieve their state goal of creating 20% of trips by bicycle by 2020 as well as finally live up to that 40 year old declaration of transit first which i think we have some work to do here in the city, so i'm happy to answer any questions that you guys might have. >> are there any questions for mr. fitzgibbons? >> [inaudible]. so, i just wanted to say thank you for accepting the nomination. when i found out that i had the ability to appoint someone to this committee, you were the first person that i thought of because of your activity in the district and evenbacker everything that you do centers

around the bicycle community, and so having someone who's so involved in not only riding a bicycle but also doing the kind of things that you've done to really change the culture of how we treat the bicycle community and how we look at it as a public safety issue more so than anything else is really important, talking about having conversations about bicyclists about being responsible, the wiggle appreciation day and showing respect for the transportation modes of the bicycle community and just really celebrating being a bicycle rider in san francisco is something that you have done and i think it's really important as someone who went to a school, uc davis, that was all about bicycles, i mean, to walk into a culture like that and have the ability to feel safe, ride around the community and everythi